Notice to All Employees

As of November 5, 2008, when President Obama is officially
elected to office, our company will instill a few new
policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring issues
of change and fairness:

1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales bonuses into
common pool that will be divided equally between all of
you. This will serve to give those of you who are under
achieving a 'fair shake.'

2. All low level workers will be pooling their wages,
including overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally
amongst yourselves. This will help those who are 'too
busy for overtime' to reap the rewards from those who
have more spare time and can work extra hours.

3. All top management will now be referred to as 'the
government.' We will not participate in this
'pooling' experience because the law doesn't
apply to us.

4. The 'government' will give eloquent speeches to
all employees every week, encouraging its workers to
continue to work hard 'for the good of all.'

5. The employees will be thrilled with these new policies
because it's 'good to spread the wealth.' Those
of you who have underachieved will finally get an
opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had
success will feel more 'patriotic.'

6. The last few people who were hired should clean out
their desks. Don't feel bad though, because President
Obama will give you free healthcare, free handouts, free oil
for heating your home, free food stamps, and he'll let
you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you
can't pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our
democratic congress, you might even get a free flat screen
TV and a coupon for free haircuts (shouldn't all
Americans be entitled to nice looking hair?).

If for any reason you are not happy with the new policies,
you may want to rethink your vote on November 4th.

Comeback of Karl Marx?

Great Article.. Good Perspective of Bailout ...

Marx’s Proposal Number Five seems to be the leading motivation for those backing the Wall Street bailout

By Martin Masse
In his Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, Karl Marx proposed 10 measures to be implemented after the proletariat takes power, with the aim of centralizing all instruments of production in the hands of the state. Proposal Number Five was to bring about the “centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.”
If he were to rise from the dead today, Marx might be delighted to discover that most economists and financial commentators, including many who claim to favour the free market, agree with him.
Indeed, analysts at the Heritage and Cato Institute, and commentators in The Wall Street Journal

McCain Roasts Obama (must see)

One Brave Democrat Columnist Tells the Harsh Truth...

I read this post on DrudgeReport early this morning, then when I went to read it again in the afternoon..it was removed from drudge's website all together. One brave Democrat columnist named Peg Kaplan tells the harsh truth about journalism's sorry state.

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

THE OBAMA 95% "TAX CUT"

I don't normally paste articles, but this is an important one that I think needs to be disseminated and since I'm certainly not one who can explain the intricacies of a tax plan, it's appropriate that I link this.

This is very important.

The coward Obama's choice to opt out of public financing for this election is allowing him to run ads day and night claiming that 95% of Americans are to receive a "tax cut."

Since most Americans prefer to spend their own money and want to pay less taxes, this must sound good. For most undecideds, a claim like this may sway their vote. Even some conservatives (the few who aren't paying attention) may think this is a great idea.

I'm sure for most of you thinking adults, this doesn't make sense and here's a very good explanation of why and the implications of such a plan.

As a working American, please know that what's detailed in this article will be YOUR FUTURE if you don't vote for McCain on November 4th. Forward this article to any working American who may need to understand the truth.

These tv ads, these outright lies, are being spread every day in every swing state in America and it must be known what this "tax cut" really means.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html

Bottom of the 9th, bases loaded, 2 outs...down by 3

SWING AND A MISS!

McCain needed a homerun (or at least a double off-the-wall) and he missed his opportunity. He may have won the debate, but I don't think it was enough to win the election. It pains me to say it, but McCain and his handlers failed to prepare adequately for this debate. Obama is an easy opponent to prepare for, he said the same "talking points" as the the 1st and 2nd debates. The key to a successful debate is to set up your opponent, to get them to speak from a defensive point of view. McCain needed to set up Obama as the "smooth talking, eloquent trial lawyer he truly is." McCain needed to set up Obama as "an empty suit, a politician who will and has been promising the world to everyone." That way when Obama starts his talking, he looses credibility. Obama has been lying his whole career, so it's nothing for him to continue his lying during the debates.

McCain let Obama off the hook on each major topic of the discussion; he let him go on education, he let him go on defense, he failed to connect the dots with Ayers (although he did mention the topic of Obama and Ayers, he failed to connect the dots as needed..it turned into a he said/he said back-n-forth). McCain mentioned Joe the Plumber, but didn't deliver enough on the "Spreading the wealth" comment. McCain had an excellent opportunity to tie Obama to the Fannie Mae/Mac scandal (he didn't) McCain could have done this, could have done that...but, the bottom line is he DID NOT do enough.

McCain tried to swing for the fences, he tried to hit the home run, but ended up getting jammed and hitting a weak ground ball to second.

The Coming Liberal Thugocracy

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors," Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. "I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face." Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people's faces. They seem determined to shut people up.

That's what Obama supporters, alerted by campaign e-mails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio program in Chicago. Mr. Kurtz had been researching Mr. Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago - papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters.

Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest e-mails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Mr. Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.

Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Mr. Obama that were "false." I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-'02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Mr. Obama's ties to Mr. Ayers.

These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals. Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can't abide having citizens hear contrary views.

To their credit, some liberal old-timers - like House Appropriations Chairman David Obey - voted against the "fairness doctrine," in line with their longstanding support of free speech. But you can expect the "fairness doctrine" to get another vote if Barack Obama wins and Democrats increase their congressional majorities.

Corporate liberals have done their share in shutting down anti-liberal speech, too. "Saturday Night Live" ran a spoof of the financial crisis that skewered Democrats like House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and liberal contributors Herbert and Marion Sandler, who sold toxic-waste-filled Golden West to Wachovia Bank for $24 billion. Kind of surprising, but not for long. The tape of the broadcast disappeared from NBC's Web site and was replaced with another that omitted the references to Mr. Frank and the Sandlers. Evidently NBC and its parent, General Electric, don't want people to hear speech that attacks liberals.

Then there's the Democrats' "card check" legislation that would abolish secret ballot elections in determining whether employees are represented by unions. The unions' strategy is obvious: Send a few thugs over to employees' homes - we know where you live - and get them to sign cards that will trigger a union victory without giving employers a chance to be heard.

Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Union organizers in the 1930s and 1940s made the case that they should have access to employees to speak freely to them, and union leaders like George Meany and Walter Reuther were ardent defenders of the First Amendment.

Today's liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that once prided themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society.

Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Mr. Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead.

• Michael Barone is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Washington Times October 13th, 2008

Liberals - Party of Tolerance & Embracing Diversity of Voice

the sky is NOT falling

For all of those panic stricken Conservatives out there...the sky is NOT falling. If you compare the polling data to this time, 4 years ago...Kerry was ahead of Bush by the same margin. In fact if you compare the polling data back when Gore ran against Bush in 2000; the polling data had Gore with a 5-7% lead on this date 8 years ago.

The media is going to do their best to convince the American public that the race is over before it begins. They want to discourage Republican voters from voting. Please stop panicking. Learn from what history has taught us.

If a Republican is within 10% of the polling prior to the election...its the same as a dead-heat. Anything can happen.

Obama's Thoughts on Race...

The following exerpts came directly from Barack Obama... (and just imagine this man could be elected President of the United States!)

From Dreams of My Father:
'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'


From Dreams of My Father:
'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'


From Dreams of My Father:
'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'


From Dreams of My Father:
'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'


From Dreams of My Father:
'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

From Audacity of Hope:

'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

Planting Seeds of Disaster

Interesting article. A bit long, but worth it!

Planting Seeds of Disaster
ACORN, Barack Obama, and the Democratic party.

‘You’ve got only a couple thousand bucks in the bank. Your job pays you dog-food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled, and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Don’t despair: You can still buy a house.” So began an April 1995 article in the Chicago Sun-Times that went on to direct prospective home-buyers fitting this profile to a group of far-left “community organizers” called ACORN, for assistance. In retrospect, of course, encouraging customers like this to buy homes seems little short of madness.

Militant ACORN
At the time, however, that 1995 Chicago newspaper article represented something of a triumph for Barack Obama. That same year, as a director at Chicago’s Woods Fund, Obama was successfully pushing for a major expansion of assistance to ACORN, and sending still more money ACORN’s way from his post as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Through both funding and personal-leadership training, Obama supported ACORN. And ACORN, far more than we’ve recognized up to now, had a major role in precipitating the subprime crisis.

I’ve already told the story of Obama’s close ties to ACORN leader Madeline Talbott, who personally led Chicago ACORN’s campaign to intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to low-credit customers. Using provisions of a 1977 law called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Chicago ACORN was able to delay and halt the efforts of banks to merge or expand until they had agreed to lower their credit standards — and to fill ACORN’s coffers to finance “counseling” operations like the one touted in that Sun-Times article. This much we’ve known. Yet these local, CRA-based pressure-campaigns fit into a broader, more disturbing, and still under-appreciated national picture. Far more than we’ve recognized, ACORN’s local, CRA-enabled pressure tactics served to entangle the financial system as a whole in the subprime mess. ACORN was no side-show. On the contrary, using CRA and ties to sympathetic congressional Democrats, ACORN succeeded in drawing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the very policies that led to the current disaster.

In one of the first book-length scholarly studies of ACORN, Organizing Urban America, Rutgers University political scientist Heidi Swarts describes this group, so dear to Barack Obama, as “oppositional outlaws.” Swarts, a strong supporter of ACORN, has no qualms about stating that its members think of themselves as “militants unafraid to confront the powers that be.” “This identity as a uniquely militant organization,” says Swarts, “is reinforced by contentious action.” ACORN protesters will break into private offices, show up at a banker’s home to intimidate his family, or pour protesters into bank lobbies to scare away customers, all in an effort to force a lowering of credit standards for poor and minority customers. According to Swarts, long-term ACORN organizers “tend to see the organization as a solitary vanguard of principled leftists...the only truly radical community organization.”

ACORN’s Inside Strategy
Yet ACORN’s entirely deserved reputation for militance is balanced by its less-well-known “inside strategy.” ACORN has long employed Washington-based lobbyists who understand very well how the legislative game is played. ACORN’s national lobbyists may encourage and benefit from the militant tactics of their base, but in the halls of congress they play the game with smooth sophistication. The untold story of ACORN’s central role in the financial meltdown is about the one-two punch to the banking system administered by this outside/inside strategy.

Critics of the notion that CRA had a major impact on the subprime crisis ask how a law passed in 1977 could have caused a crisis in 2008? The answer has a lot to do with ACORN — and the critical years of 1990-1995. While the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act did call on banks to increase lending in poor and minority neighborhoods, its exact requirements were vague, and therefore open to a good deal of regulatory interpretation. Banks merger or expansion plans were rarely held up under CRA until the late 1980s, when ACORN perfected its technique of filing CRA complaints in tandem with the sort of intimidation tactics perfected by that original “community organizer” (and Obama idol), Saul Alinsky.

At first, ACORN’s anti-bank actions were relatively few in number. However, under a provision of the 1989 savings and loan bailout pushed by liberal Democratic legislators, like Massachusetts Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy, lenders were required to compile public records of mortgage applicants by race, gender, and income. Although the statistics produced by these studies were presented in highly misleading ways, groups like ACORN were able to use them to embarrass banks into lowering credit standards. At the same time, a wave of banking mergers in the early 1990's provided an opening for ACORN to use CRA to force lending changes. Any merger could be blocked under CRA, and once ACORN began systematically filing protests over minority lending, a formerly toothless set of regulations began to bite.

ACORN’s efforts to undermine credit standards in the late 1980s taught it a valuable lesson. However much pressure ACORN put on banks to lower credit standards, tough requirements in the “secondary market” run by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac served as a barrier to change. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy up mortgages en masse, bundle them, and sell them to investors on the world market. Back then, Fannie and Freddie refused to buy loans that failed to meet high credit standards. If, for example, a local bank buckled to ACORN pressure and agreed to offer poor or minority applicants a 5-percent down-payment rate, instead of the normal 10-20 percent, Fannie and Freddie would refuse to buy up those mortgages. That would leave all the risk of these shaky loans with the local bank. So again and again, local banks would tell ACORN that, because of standards imposed by Fannie and Freddie, they could lower their credit standards by only a little.

So the eighties taught ACORN that a high-pressure, Alinskyite outside strategy wouldn’t be enough. Their Washington lobbyists would have to bring inside pressure on the government to undercut credit standards at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Only then would local banks consider making loans available to customers with bad credit histories, low wages, virtually nothing in the bank, and even bankruptcies on record.

Democrats and ACORN
As early as 1987, ACORN began pressuring Fannie and Freddie to review their standards, with modest results. By 1989, ACORN had lured Fannie Mae into the first of many “pilot projects” designed to help local banks lower credit standards. But it was all small potatoes until the serious pressure began in early 1991. At that point, Democratic Senator Allan Dixon convened a Senate subcommittee hearing at which an ACORN representative gave key testimony. It’s probably not a coincidence that Dixon, like Obama, was an Illinois Democrat, since Chicago has long been a stronghold of ACORN influence.

Dixon gave credibility to ACORN’s accusations of loan bias, although these claims of racism were disputed by Missouri Republican, Christopher Bond. ACORN’s spokesman strenuously complained that his organization’s efforts to relax local credit standards were being blocked by requirements set by the secondary market. Dixon responded by pressing Fannie and Freddie to do more to relax those standards — and by promising to introduce legislation that would ensure it. At this early stage, Fannie and Freddie walked a fine line between promising to do more, while protesting any wholesale reduction of credit requirements.

By July of 1991, ACORN’s legislative campaign began to bear fruit. As the Chicago Tribune put it, “Housing activists have been pushing hard to improve housing for the poor by extracting greater financial support from the country’s two highly profitable secondary mortgage-market companies. Thanks to the help of sympathetic lawmakers, it appeared...that they may succeed.” The Tribune went on to explain that House Democrat Henry Gonzales had announced that Fannie and Freddie had agreed to commit $3.5 billion to low-income housing in 1992 and 1993, in addition to a just-announced $10 billion “affordable housing loan program” by Fannie Mae. The article emphasizes ACORN pressure and notes that Fannie and Freddie had been fighting against the plan as recently as a week before agreement was reached. Fannie and Freddie gave in only to stave off even more restrictive legislation floated by congressional Democrats.

A mere month later, ACORN Housing Corporation president, George Butts made news by complaining to a House Banking subcommittee that ACORN’s efforts to pressure banks using CRA were still being hamstrung by Fannie and Freddie. Butts also demanded still more data on the race, gender, and income of loan applicants. Many news reports over the ensuing months point to ACORN as the key source of pressure on congress for a further reduction of credit standards at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As a result of this pressure, ACORN was eventually permitted to redraft many of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s loan guideline.

Clinton and ACORN
ACORN’s progress through 1992 depended on its Democratic allies. Whatever ACORN managed to squeeze out of the George H. W. Bush administration came under congressional pressure. With the advent of the Clinton administration, however, ACORN’s fortunes took a positive turn. Clinton Housing Secretary Henry Cisnersos pledged to meet monthly with ACORN representatives. For ACORN, those meetings bore fruit.

Another factor working in ACORN’s favor was that its increasing success with local banks turned those banks into allies in the battle with Fannie and Freddie. Precisely because ACORN’s local pressure tactics were working, banks themselves now wanted Fannie and Freddie to loosen their standards still further, so as to buy up still more of the high-risk loans they’d made at ACORN’s insistence. So by the 1993, a grand alliance of ACORN, national Democrats, and local bankers looking for someone to lessen the risks imposed on them by CRA and ACORN were uniting to pressure Fannie and Freddie to loosen credit standards still further.

At this point, both ACORN and the Clinton administration were working together to impose large numerical targets or “set asides” (really a sort of poor and minority loan quota system) on Fannie and Freddie. ACORN called for at least half of Fannie and Freddie loans to go to low-income customers. At first the Clinton administration offered a set-aside of 30 percent. But eventually ACORN got what it wanted. In early 1994, the Clinton administration floated plans for committing $1 trillion in loans to low- and moderate-income home-buyers, which would amount to about half of Fannie Mae’s business by the end of the decade. Wall Street Analysts attributed Fannie Mae’s willingness to go along with the change to the need to protect itself against still more severe “congressional attack.” News reports also highlighted praise for the change from ACORN’s head lobbyist, Deepak Bhargava.

This sweeping debasement of credit standards was touted by Fannie Mae’s chairman, chief executive officer, and now prominent Obama adviser James A. Johnson. This is also the period when Fannie Mae ramped up its pilot programs and local partnerships with ACORN, all of which became precedents and models for the pattern of risky subprime mortgages at the root of today’s crisis. During these years, Obama’s Chicago ACORN ally, Madeline Talbott, was at the forefront of participation in those pilot programs, and her activities were consistently supported by Obama through both foundation funding and personal leadership training for her top organizers.

Finally, in June of 1995, President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and Secretary Cisneros announced the administration’s comprehensive new strategy for raising home-ownership in America to an all-time high. Representatives from ACORN were guests of honor at the ceremony. In his remarks, Clinton emphasized that: “Out homeownership strategy will not cost the taxpayers one extra cent. It will not require legislation.” Clinton meant that informal partnerships between Fannie and Freddie and groups like ACORN would make mortgages available to customers “who have historically been excluded from homeownership.”

Disaster
In the end of course, Clinton’s plan cost taxpayers an almost unimaginable amount of money. And it was just around the time of his 1995 announcement that the Chicago papers started encouraging bad-credit customers with “dog-food” wages, little money in the bank, and even histories of bankruptcy to apply for home loans with the help of ACORN. At both the local and national levels, then, ACORN served as the critical catalyst, levering pressure created by the Community Reinvestment Act and pull with Democratic politicians to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into a pattern of high-risk loans.

Up to now, conventional wisdom on the financial meltdown has relegated ACORN and the CRA to bit parts. The real problem, we’ve been told, lay with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, however, ACORN is at the base of the whole mess. ACORN used CRA and Democratic sympathizers to entangle Fannie and Freddie and the entire financial system in a disastrous disregard of the most basic financial standards. And Barack Obama cut his teeth as an organizer and politician backing up ACORN’s economic madness every step of the way.

October 7, 2008 7:00 AM

Planting Seeds of Disaster
ACORN, Barack Obama, and the Democratic party.

By Stanley Kurtz

Do Statistics make a Connection?

Body count. In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago, one of the highest crime rates in the country and might be higher than today's Baghdad. Sens. Barack Obama & Dick Durbin, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., Gov. Rod Blogojevich, House leader Mike Madigan, Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike), Mayor Richard M. Daley (son of Mayor Richard J. Daley).....our leadership in Illinois.....all Democrats. Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago. Of course they're all blaming each other. Can't blame Republicans, there aren't any! State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country. Cook County (Chicago) sales tax 10.25% highest in country. Chicago school system one of the worst in country. This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois. He's gonna 'fix' Washington politics?

What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rates all have in common? A shortage of Republican leaders:

1.Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961.
2.Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954.
3.Cincinnati, OH (3rd)...since 1984.
4.Cleveland, OH (4th)...since 1989.
5.Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor.
6.St. Louis, MO (6th)....since 1949.
7.El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor.
8.Milwaukee, WI (8th)...since 1908.
9.Philadelphia, PA (9th)...since 1952.
10.Newark, NJ(10th)...since 1907.


Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'

It is the disadvantaged who habitually electing elitist Democrats --- yet they remain disadvantaged.

"Poor People have been voting for Democrats for the last 50 years, .............and they are still poor." Charles Barkley --

EDUCATING THE IDIOTS

So, a leaked memo written for the liberal power-players within the state of Colorado by the nation-wide leftist organization called the “Democracy Alliance” has hit the newswires and in it, the strategy of a campaign to “Educate the Idiots" where they are to target "minorities, GED’s, drop-outs” has been revealed.

http://facethestate.com/downloads/coda-web/strategygroup.pdf

But really, is this anything new?

Isn’t the entire socialist mantra of the left a call out to the minorities, GEDs and drop-outs of our nation? The whole of the Obama platform is exactly that: “Don’t worry idiots, we’ll pay for you, support your kids, pay for your healthcare, increase your minimum wages, and if you fuck all that up, we’ll protect you from evil legislation like 3 Strikes if you go out and start committing crime!”

The uneducated masses have always been the central voting block of the left, mainly due to the knee-jerk response to leftist propaganda. When people are constantly telling you that if you vote for them, you’ll be taken care of and if you don’t, some rich white guy is going to put you on the street, you listen. And when you’re an idiot, you hear these messages over and over again both in the news and in pop-culture (music, tv and movies consistently tell you that there’s nothing more evil in the world than an old white man in a suit), you have no ability to think otherwise. For a moment, erase the majority of the common-sense you were so thankfully given and pretend you too are an idiot. Now, the left tells you this:

“Conservatives want to cut taxes for rich people and take away government programs that you rely on!”

And the Right tells you this:

“Conservatives want to cut all taxes, for the rich included because then more money is invested in business and our economy, increasing jobs, stimulating growth and innovation and improving our nation as a whole.”

Now, as an idiot, who are you more likely to vote for? The kneejerk reaction is to be wary of the conservative and to ignore their point because it requires foresight and is less immediately tangible.

The fact is, the liberal belief system is made up of a false standard of “fairness.” Ask any rich liberal about fairness and he’ll cry to you about the poor but then look at his tax returns and you’ll notice that the bullshitter gives less to charity than any of his conservative counterparts. He’ll cry to you about the inequities of the legal system and how minorities are unfairly profiled, but the bullshitter has never been in a bad neighborhood in his life where he didn’t lock the doors of his Volvo (if he’s ever been at all). The concept of the limousine liberal, crying for the masses from his penthouse condo is nothing new, of course, and this revelation that rich liberals have outright disdain for minorities, the poor and the uneducated shouldn’t be either. Their very policies are the way they are to keep the status quo in tact. Let’s be honest here, why is a liberal so against school choice? First, of course, there’s the fear of the minorities coming in to their kids’ schools and the horrors that would bring, but more importantly they are concerned with keeping the poor in failing public schools so they can keep “them” separate. Remember, it’s not about actually giving a hand up, it’s about giving a hand out. Who cares about teaching a man to fish, the man is poor and smells bad, just give him a fish and tell him to go away while feeling good about yourself for helping.

In a world where the soundbite is more important than the speech, the liberal ideology will always ring more true in the heart of the idiot. “You need a union so you can get paid more,” is much easier to understand than “If the union forces the company to pay you more, the company’s profit margin shrinks, less money is pumped in to the community in which you live, and the company can afford to hire less of your peers and you’re more likely to lose your job in any type of crisis.” Liberal stump speeches about “Free Healthcare!” are much more exciting than conservatives trying to explain why government-controlled healthcare will provide you with considerably less health and shockingly less care. When liberal politics are injected in to the mass media in the form of entertainment, who do you think that is reaching out to? Do you believe that more smart people or more idiots are watching Saturday Night Live? What concept do you think is more easily digested to an idiot: “War is not the answer” or “Peace through strength”? When Barack starts hollering about ending the war, the idiot instantly thinks “Oh, no war would be great!” They can’t really figure out how military action abroad keeps us safer at home. Why? Because they’re idiots, remember?

Conservatism is not knee jerk. It actually takes a bit of thought. It takes a bit of foresight. Most importantly, it takes a lot of faith in a person to be better. Liberalism is emotional. Liberalism is about what’s best for me right now. It’s about trying to solve a problem by throwing money at it as opposed to getting your hands dirty. Most importantly, liberalism believes in government more than people. It believes that people, especially the idiots, can’t possibly get along without the government’s help.

So I’m sure that this memo will get some newsplay on Drudge or talk radio for a day or so, but the MSM will never pick it up and it’ll just disappear. But does it really matter anyway? If it did get out there, liberals will just tell the idiots that the rich white man did it.